Rounders (R)

Most sports and hobbies, no matter how obscure, usually get their 15 minutes in the box office, bringing light to often-enigmatic pastimes. Consider “Searching for Bobby Fisher,” which explored the roots laid to the game by chess champion Bobby Fisher, or the unsung “21,” which attempted to bring mystery and a bit of intrigue to the game of blackjack. However, while that film captured the rush of the win and the dangers involved, its wide lens and multi-character ensemble took focus off the game of cards, and more importantly, why people gamble in the first place.

Enter the 1998 film “Rounders,” starring powerhouses Matt Damon and Edward Norton, in a film that creates both a stirring drama about interpersonal demons as well as making the game of poker exciting (which, as with the sport of golf for any non-player, is unbelievable boring to spectate). Matt Damon plays Mike McDermott, a once handy underground poker champion who lost his shot at the big time risking everything in an illegal game with an underground loan shark/criminal Teddy KGB (John Malkovich). Now on the level and attending law school with his beautiful girlfriend Jo (Gretchen Mol), McDermott, who swore off poker for his new life, is lured back into the game when an old friend and ex-con “Worm” (Edward Norton) needs his help to get out from underneath a massive gambling debt and price on his head.

“Rounders” is a movie driven by both its all-star cast and its attempt to explore what it is that drives card players to often risk it all for what they can’t afford. The movie easily dismisses the notion that gambling is an “easy buck,” showing the emotional and, often physical toll that the game of poker has on its central protagonist McDermott. Early scenes of the movie are the kind of you’d expect in John Grisham novels like “The Pelican Brief,” showing the humdrum and hard work of law school. However, we quickly see that McDermott has an attraction to the game that won’t die no matter how far he tries to pull away. Studying hard by day but failing to shine as a student, McDermott makes his strongest impression when he cold reads the hands of a number of his professors at a university card game.

Damon, who gained Hollywood acting chops a year earlier in the 1997 drama “Good Will Hunting” here shines as McDermott, appearing at once a man trying to pave a new life for himself but drawn, almost unhealthily, to a game he can’t let go. However, a large credit to the success of “Rounders” as a film lies in the intrigue painted by its arena (namely underground clubs, bars, hangouts), but more due to the acting skill Norton brings to the table as well as the chemistry he has with co-star Damon. Norton’s “Worm” is McDermott’s exact opposite, a man with no concept of winning a hand honorably, and whose underhanded antics get he and McDermott in trouble more than a few times. However, the one part camaraderie and equal part loose cannon that Norton brings to the table is impressive to behold.

Other players bring drama to the movie, most notably John Turturro as McDermott’s friend and ally John Kinish, and Martin Landau as law school professor Abe Petrovsky. Turturro and Landau play opposite sides of the game, but both seem to contain lessons that McDermott needs to learn along the way. Of course, the most dynamic force in the movie, out shadowing even Damon and Norton, is John Malkovich as the evil poker player/mobster Teddy KGB. I’ve always liked Malkovich since the his performance as vicious con Cyrus “the Virus” Grisham in 1997’s “Con Air,” and equally well as the seductively criminal Tom Ripley in the fantastic 2002 drama “Ripley’s Game.” Here, Malkovich seems constrained by a script clearly written as a rise and fall story for Damon’s McDermott, but still manages to steal many scenes, most notably during the film’s close featuring a poker showdown between he and McDermott.

Criticism of “Rounders” could probably come in the form of some unnecessary drama in the wrong places, such as strife between McDermott and his girlfriend Jo, as well as the thinly painted social circle McDermott has at law school who seem written in more for drama and less for story than one would have hoped. Additionally, the inclusion of other major actors such as “X-Men’s” Femmke Jassen, takes the focus slightly off the main players but really doesn’t subtract from the overall feel and excitement of the film.

On balance, “Rounders” succeeds in several ways, such as the performances its actors bring to the table, the drama and action it manages to give its subject material, and for being an honestly engrossing and exciting film where a lesser one would have run the risk of boring audiences. Part of the fault of the film “21” laid in the fact that its makers wrongfully assumed that the mere presence of cards, gambling, and money would create stakes high enough to sell the film without powerful character development. However, “Rounders” avoids these pratfalls, creating an engrossing story with characters we actually care about. Whether or not poker is your thing, you’d be hard pressed to find fault with the film, finding instead an engaging film that entertains on all levels.

Want more “Rounders?” Check out this great review by Poker Junkie, a proud partner of The Movie Buff!

– by Mark Ziobro